Date   
Kato coupler conversions

Ernest Puddick
 

I have some older atlas locomotives with kato drives GP7 and RS3. The GP has pins to hold the coupler box. With Kadees l just used the box that comes with the #5 and it slid in a treat. I'm just starting to swap out the Kadees. My first note has been the thinning of shanks on some couplers where the box squeezes it and inhibits the swing. This is worse on an atlas/kato F7 that used the #450 conversion and Kadees #30 series boxes. 



Re: [SergentEng] Re: Kato coupler conversions

Christopher Zurek
 


I'd like to see some kind of Tailor Made coupler for this.

The more I look at the pilots of these Kato GP35's and compare them to pix of the real thing, the more I see this will require a major rework.

Chris Z.

On 5/30/2014 2:22 PM, James Wall nsc39dash8@... [SergentEng] wrote:
 

I have put EC87's in my Kato units( SD40, 40-2, 45) with no problems. The early version of the SD40 did only have the horn hook with the plastic push pin, same as Kato did on early Atlas chassis. The Kadee box will work. You need to drill and tap the hole for the push pin for a 2/56 screw.

Now to clean up the Kato draft gear I would use the new Detail West scale coupler buffer. The I would try the narrow shank in the scale box which will need some work to fit a loco, have not tried this yet either, just an idea. I made a suggest for the tailor made to fit these new DA coupler buffers and the Atlas locomotive scale coupler pocket. I hope Frank will work on this in the future. I have used the EC87 as shown in the guide section for the Atlas.

James Wall



Re: [SergentEng] Re: So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Nathan Rich
 

As I do not plan on using interior lights in my cars, I will not need to do much more than remove the contact strips so that the cars do not ride on them. I'll just pull them out except fot he tail car, which I do want to have lights. The new bolster arrangement is slick.

Nathan


On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Aaron Heaney wolfhunt1987@... [SergentEng] <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

I really like them it makes it a lot easier to line the couplers before coupling because you only have one pivot point instead of two. And because height  is more important the tightlocks  then it is on the type E. Adjusting the height is real easy with the modifcations made to the car.

Aaron Heaney


On Friday, May 30, 2014 4:29 PM, "morganw.davis@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:


 
What sid you think of the tailor mades? Is it worth the hassle of reslicing the carbody? I put compatible's into coupler boxes on two Walthers car (sadly, the pair that were Godzilla'd) and other than be ii ng a tick short, had to hold the diaphrams to get them to get close enough to engage, worked fine for me. So I'm curious to hear about them, as well.



Re: [SergentEng] Re: So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Aaron Heaney
 

I really like them it makes it a lot easier to line the couplers before coupling because you only have one pivot point instead of two. And because height  is more important the tightlocks  then it is on the type E. Adjusting the height is real easy with the modifcations made to the car.

Aaron Heaney


On Friday, May 30, 2014 4:29 PM, "morganw.davis@... [SergentEng]" wrote:


 
What sid you think of the tailor mades? Is it worth the hassle of reslicing the carbody? I put compatible's into coupler boxes on two Walthers car (sadly, the pair that were Godzilla'd) and other than be ii ng a tick short, had to hold the diaphrams to get them to get close enough to engage, worked fine for me. So I'm curious to hear about them, as well.


Re: Kato coupler conversions

James Wall
 

Dave,

You are correct on that point.  Thank You for correcting me there.

James Wall

Re: [SergentEng] Re: So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Morgan
 

What sid you think of the tailor mades? Is it worth the hassle of reslicing the carbody? I put compatible's into coupler boxes on two Walthers car (sadly, the pair that were Godzilla'd) and other than be ii ng a tick short, had to hold the diaphrams to get them to get close enough to engage, worked fine for me. So I'm curious to hear about them, as well.

Re: Kato coupler conversions

David R. Olsen <drolsen@...>
 

James - I think you meant to refer to the Details West scale coupler buffer, as opposed to DA.

Dave Olsen
Alexandria, VA

On May 30, 2014, at 15:22, "James Wall nsc39dash8@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:
I have put EC87's in my Kato units( SD40, 40-2, 45) with no problems. The early version of the SD40 did only have the horn hook with the plastic push pin, same as Kato did on early Atlas chassis. The Kadee box will work. You need to drill and tap the hole for the push pin for a 2/56 screw.
Now to clean up the Kato draft gear I would use the new Detail Associates scale coupler buffer. The I would try the narrow shank in the scale box which will need some work to fit a loco, have not tried this yet either, just an idea. I made a suggest for the tailor made to fit these new DA coupler buffers and the Atlas locomotive scale coupler pocket. I hope Frank will work on this in the future. I have used the EC87 as shown in the guide section for the Atlas.


James Wall

Re: Kato coupler conversions

James Wall
 

I have put EC87's in my Kato units( SD40, 40-2, 45) with no problems. The early version of the SD40 did only have the horn hook with the plastic push pin, same as Kato did on early Atlas chassis. The Kadee box will work. You need to drill and tap the hole for the push pin for a 2/56 screw.

Now to clean up the Kato draft gear I would use the new Detail Associates scale coupler buffer. The I would try the narrow shank in the scale box which will need some work to fit a loco, have not tried this yet either, just an idea. I made a suggest for the tailor made to fit these new DA coupler buffers and the Atlas locomotive scale coupler pocket. I hope Frank will work on this in the future. I have used the EC87 as shown in the guide section for the Atlas.

James Wall

Re: [SergentEng] Re: Kato coupler conversions

Christopher Zurek
 

The older Kato locomotives did not have coupler boxes. There was a horn hook coupler held on with a plastic push in pin.

A Kadee box will fit in the slot, and that should be able to hold a Sergent compatible shank coupler.

I on the other hand am trying to figure out how to make that awful looking opening and buffer on the Kato pilots look better.

Chris Z.

On 5/29/2014 7:17 PM, morganw.davis@... [SergentEng] wrote:
 

freedom not much help on the SD 40 s but the SD 90 s just dropped inif yours are set up the same way as the 90's are you just need to undo the screw holding a couple box under the engine pulled them out through the front and then there should be a little plastic tabs underneath the body that you want to slowly and carefully work free and everything should separate if you happen to notice its acting like its stuck on something then you can go digging for the screw but usually they're just stubborn and no you really shouldn't half a body part


Re: [SergentEng] Re: So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Ryan Harris
 

I haven't bought any of the assembled couplers so far. I've built E, SE, SBE in different shank lengths and F couplers.

Ryan H
Fort Worth

On 5/29/2014 7:06 PM, morganw.davis@... [SergentEng] wrote:

Did you build yours though or buy the RTR? Not that it should make much difference since Mr Sergent is building the same couplers we are, but still

Re: [SergentEng] Re: So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Aaron Heaney
 

I built mine. The tailor made for the cars and compatible shank for the engines.

Aaron Heaney


On Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:06 PM, "morganw.davis@... [SergentEng]" wrote:
 


 
Did you build yours though or buy the RTR? Not that it should make much difference since Mr Sergent is building the same couplers we are, but still


Re: Kato coupler conversions

Morgan
 

freedom not much help on the SD 40 s but the SD 90 s just dropped inif yours are set up the same way as the 90's are you just need to undo the screw holding a couple box under the engine pulled them out through the front and then there should be a little plastic tabs underneath the body that you want to slowly and carefully work free and everything should separate if you happen to notice its acting like its stuck on something then you can go digging for the screw but usually they're just stubborn and no you really shouldn't half a body part

Re: So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Morgan
 

Did you build yours though or buy the RTR? Not that it should make much difference since Mr Sergent is building the same couplers we are, but still

Re: [SergentEng] So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Tim L
 

I haven't used them, and am unlikely to do so as tightlocks aren't
in use here (our passenger stock uses couplers to the same basic design
as the "Santa Fe" coupler; that will be a challenge for me to convert
and mount!) but it sounds like they did what they were designed to do
and keep things tightly coupled until the stress was so great it could
no longer cope; a roll over or an 87:1 child would certainly kill
a 1:1 tightlock.

Fortunately for me the worst I've experienced with junior members was
one that was getting quite visibly upset because he couldn't run his
train because some adult member has left the turnout from the siding
blocked with his train and gone off to do something else!

Back on track, I don't know how passenger train consists were made up
over there but here in the 80's fixed consists became the way of doing
things; if you run your passenger train in the same car-order every
time you could put E's between the cars and have H's on the ends. If
the cars have diaphragms the use of E's would be well hidden.

Tim
Land of OZ

On 27/05/2014 06:44, morganw.davis@... [SergentEng] wrote:
Has anyone else used them yet? What were your thoughts? I ask, because I
bought two packs of the kit-form couplers for my birthday. (Slow
retrofitting) Also bought two sets of spare ball bearings bedause I
launched most of mine with the 144pack of Type Es across the pasture
before I got good at them. When they arrived, I counted the hours until
I was home from work, slapped all the Hs together and as many Es as I
had the balls for, let the glue dry s few days, and outfitted a Business
Train for the INRD in Hs and some locos in Es.

Snip

Re: So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Ryan Harris
 

I have had an experience similar to Morgan's where the knuckle locks open, but mine has only been with SE couplers. The difference I see between the SE and the E couplers is the little trough (for lack of a better term) that extends from the ball cavity upward at a 45° angle toward the shank (when looking at the couplers as you assemble them). I'm guessing the ball gets trapped in this trough causing the knuckle to remain locked in the open position. I've only had a few of them get stuck like this, and when they do I work them against another coupler using the uncoupling wand until they finally dislodge.

This is the only problem I've encountered in the hundreds of compatible shank couplers I've assembled and installed. While it's a rare problem, the fact that it only occurs with the SE couplers indicates there's something different about those couplers causing this problem. The only difference I find is the little "trough" in the main coupler body casting.

Ryan H
Fort Worth 

Re: [SergentEng] So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Nathan Rich
 

I have put compatible shank H couplers onto a pair of P2K E units, a pair of P42's and a P32-8, and the fronts of two of my baggage cars so that they can be conversion cars before I get around to doing the conversions on the rest of that train. There are about 30 cars that will need doing before all is said and done.

I have had no problems with them, especially since I don't need to worry about junior club members. Other than it being a rant to let off steam, I fail to see your final point, Morgan. I think there is something about the bottom plates, but I am pretty sure that the bottoms of the H couplers are different from the E couplers. I take it as read that these are a bit more delicate and definitely undoubtedly higher precision than the Kadee couplers they are replacing. With that in mind I operate accordingly.

Nathan


On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Heaney wolfhunt1987@... [SergentEng] <SergentEng@...> wrote:
 

I put the tailor made type Hs on my 12 car Walthers Broadway Limited and ran them around my club and the work great. I even outfitted the engines with the standard type Hs to haul the train they also work great.

Aaron Heaney


On Monday, May 26, 2014 4:44 PM, "morganw.davis@... [SergentEng]" <SergentEng@...> wrote:


 
Has anyone else used them yet? What were your thoughts? I ask, because I bought two packs of the kit-form couplers for my birthday. (Slow retrofitting) Also bought two sets of spare ball bearings bedause I launched most of mine with the 144pack of Type Es across the pasture before I got good at them. When they arrived, I counted the hours until I was home from work, slapped all the Hs together and as many Es as I had the balls for, let the glue dry s few days, and outfitted a Business Train for the INRD in Hs and some locos in Es. 

Now, of those couplers, all of the Es are in tact minus one I superglued shut (still useable as a dummy) and TWO of the H couplers are alive. What the Hell!?

Now, of the Hs, a few I only have myself to blame on. One was on a car left on the club, coupled up to another car. I didn't think anyone would bother them, because they obviously weren't club cars, or theirs, and they couldn't couple up. But I neglected to count in the ignorant stupidity of myself and the ten year old junior members of the club, who judging by the pile of cast metal under the car grabbed hold of something he wanted to run without asking ANYONE and tried to pull it free. Bless its little heart, that Type H held onto the other car just as long as it could but the perpetrator finally bent the coupler in half and snapped it. No one fessed up, but I know the kids who would've done that. 

I lost a couple into a roll-over as well, another testament to the rigidity of the H. I think one let go of its bottom plate because I didn't glue it in tightly enough, but the other is a victim of a trend I'm seeing in all the Type H couplers I owned. The Bottom plate is either not snapping. gluing in tightly enough, or the bottom plate is warping because the Ball bearing is getting out of its track and wedging itself between the beavertail of the knuckle and locking the coupler half-open. If it were a couple, I'd freely accept user error. But I built the Type Es alongside them, broke them in together, and have no issues with them. The only iddference was the Jig, other than that I built them identically. 

These are GORGEOUS couplers. I love the look of them on the backs of Private Varnish cars, even unpainted they just look amazing. (I run modern era, but its an excuse to run 50s cars.) but if they're gonna fall apart like that, I'm going back to my Es. And truth be told, the H coupler almost did its job TOO well in the first example. When I have my own layout, I won't be cranking on my cars like a moron, but if that had been an E coupler, or an H and an E, they would've come apart and I would've had three still-good Type Hs. And I'm not against buying assembled couplers, but I have a LOT of passenger cars to outfit and I like building them. The good news, I can salvage a few of the bodies, get new balls, (order's already in, Frank. ;) )re-use the 144bulk kit's knuckles and bottoms, so I'm not out of the H race yet. and I'll refit entirely with Es before I get rid of my Sergent couplers. I'm here for reliability more than fine-scale detailling, I've lost more of those stupid flippin' son of a buket springs out of the sides of Kadee couplers than any modeller will believe (try dozens, I'm cursed) and a couple that is entirely self-locking and self-contained is appealing to me. So what's everyone else's experience been with them?
  



S Couplers

Richard Barker
 

Just finished my first  pairs of S couplers.
They work great can’t waite to finish the rest of my cars and locos.
Great size for On30.

Sent from Windows Mail

Re: [SergentEng] So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Aaron Heaney
 

I put the tailor made type Hs on my 12 car Walthers Broadway Limited and ran them around my club and the work great. I even outfitted the engines with the standard type Hs to haul the train they also work great.

Aaron Heaney


On Monday, May 26, 2014 4:44 PM, "morganw.davis@... [SergentEng]" wrote:


 
Has anyone else used them yet? What were your thoughts? I ask, because I bought two packs of the kit-form couplers for my birthday. (Slow retrofitting) Also bought two sets of spare ball bearings bedause I launched most of mine with the 144pack of Type Es across the pasture before I got good at them. When they arrived, I counted the hours until I was home from work, slapped all the Hs together and as many Es as I had the balls for, let the glue dry s few days, and outfitted a Business Train for the INRD in Hs and some locos in Es. 

Now, of those couplers, all of the Es are in tact minus one I superglued shut (still useable as a dummy) and TWO of the H couplers are alive. What the Hell!?

Now, of the Hs, a few I only have myself to blame on. One was on a car left on the club, coupled up to another car. I didn't think anyone would bother them, because they obviously weren't club cars, or theirs, and they couldn't couple up. But I neglected to count in the ignorant stupidity of myself and the ten year old junior members of the club, who judging by the pile of cast metal under the car grabbed hold of something he wanted to run without asking ANYONE and tried to pull it free. Bless its little heart, that Type H held onto the other car just as long as it could but the perpetrator finally bent the coupler in half and snapped it. No one fessed up, but I know the kids who would've done that. 

I lost a couple into a roll-over as well, another testament to the rigidity of the H. I think one let go of its bottom plate because I didn't glue it in tightly enough, but the other is a victim of a trend I'm seeing in all the Type H couplers I owned. The Bottom plate is either not snapping. gluing in tightly enough, or the bottom plate is warping because the Ball bearing is getting out of its track and wedging itself between the beavertail of the knuckle and locking the coupler half-open. If it were a couple, I'd freely accept user error. But I built the Type Es alongside them, broke them in together, and have no issues with them. The only iddference was the Jig, other than that I built them identically. 

These are GORGEOUS couplers. I love the look of them on the backs of Private Varnish cars, even unpainted they just look amazing. (I run modern era, but its an excuse to run 50s cars.) but if they're gonna fall apart like that, I'm going back to my Es. And truth be told, the H coupler almost did its job TOO well in the first example. When I have my own layout, I won't be cranking on my cars like a moron, but if that had been an E coupler, or an H and an E, they would've come apart and I would've had three still-good Type Hs. And I'm not against buying assembled couplers, but I have a LOT of passenger cars to outfit and I like building them. The good news, I can salvage a few of the bodies, get new balls, (order's already in, Frank. ;) )re-use the 144bulk kit's knuckles and bottoms, so I'm not out of the H race yet. and I'll refit entirely with Es before I get rid of my Sergent couplers. I'm here for reliability more than fine-scale detailling, I've lost more of those stupid flippin' son of a buket springs out of the sides of Kadee couplers than any modeller will believe (try dozens, I'm cursed) and a couple that is entirely self-locking and self-contained is appealing to me. So what's everyone else's experience been with them?
  


So... Let's have a discussion on the Type H coulplers, please?

Morgan
 

Has anyone else used them yet? What were your thoughts? I ask, because I bought two packs of the kit-form couplers for my birthday. (Slow retrofitting) Also bought two sets of spare ball bearings bedause I launched most of mine with the 144pack of Type Es across the pasture before I got good at them. When they arrived, I counted the hours until I was home from work, slapped all the Hs together and as many Es as I had the balls for, let the glue dry s few days, and outfitted a Business Train for the INRD in Hs and some locos in Es. 


Now, of those couplers, all of the Es are in tact minus one I superglued shut (still useable as a dummy) and TWO of the H couplers are alive. What the Hell!?


Now, of the Hs, a few I only have myself to blame on. One was on a car left on the club, coupled up to another car. I didn't think anyone would bother them, because they obviously weren't club cars, or theirs, and they couldn't couple up. But I neglected to count in the ignorant stupidity of myself and the ten year old junior members of the club, who judging by the pile of cast metal under the car grabbed hold of something he wanted to run without asking ANYONE and tried to pull it free. Bless its little heart, that Type H held onto the other car just as long as it could but the perpetrator finally bent the coupler in half and snapped it. No one fessed up, but I know the kids who would've done that. 


I lost a couple into a roll-over as well, another testament to the rigidity of the H. I think one let go of its bottom plate because I didn't glue it in tightly enough, but the other is a victim of a trend I'm seeing in all the Type H couplers I owned. The Bottom plate is either not snapping. gluing in tightly enough, or the bottom plate is warping because the Ball bearing is getting out of its track and wedging itself between the beavertail of the knuckle and locking the coupler half-open. If it were a couple, I'd freely accept user error. But I built the Type Es alongside them, broke them in together, and have no issues with them. The only iddference was the Jig, other than that I built them identically. 


These are GORGEOUS couplers. I love the look of them on the backs of Private Varnish cars, even unpainted they just look amazing. (I run modern era, but its an excuse to run 50s cars.) but if they're gonna fall apart like that, I'm going back to my Es. And truth be told, the H coupler almost did its job TOO well in the first example. When I have my own layout, I won't be cranking on my cars like a moron, but if that had been an E coupler, or an H and an E, they would've come apart and I would've had three still-good Type Hs. And I'm not against buying assembled couplers, but I have a LOT of passenger cars to outfit and I like building them. The good news, I can salvage a few of the bodies, get new balls, (order's already in, Frank. ;) )re-use the 144bulk kit's knuckles and bottoms, so I'm not out of the H race yet. and I'll refit entirely with Es before I get rid of my Sergent couplers. I'm here for reliability more than fine-scale detailling, I've lost more of those stupid flippin' son of a buket springs out of the sides of Kadee couplers than any modeller will believe (try dozens, I'm cursed) and a couple that is entirely self-locking and self-contained is appealing to me. So what's everyone else's experience been with them?

  

Re: [SergentEng] Re: Coupler dimension info

Tim L
 

Thankyou Frank, that's exactly the information I was looking for.

Best to 'ya all

Tim
Land of OZ

On 24/05/2014 14:06, fsergent@... [SergentEng] wrote:
Hi Tim,


I think the drawings in the Files archive for this group has the
dimensional data you are looking for. If not, let me know.

Thanks,
Frank